linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/20] posix-timers: Ensure timer ID search-loop limit is valid

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZFpWNIoTo9FfO2t5@lothringen>
Date:   Tue, 9 May 2023 16:18:28 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        syzbot+5c54bd3eb218bb595aa9@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/20] posix-timers: Ensure timer ID search-loop limit is
 valid

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 02:38:50PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, May 09 2023 at 11:42, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Sat, May 06, 2023 at 01:36:22AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Unless you think about the theoretical case of an unlimited number of
> >> threads sharing the signal_struct which all concurrently try to allocate
> >> a timer id and then releasing it immediately again (to avoid resource
> >> limit exhaustion). Theoretically possible, but is this a real concern
> >> with a timer ID space of 2G?
> >
> > I didn't go that far actually, it was just me misunderstanding that loop and
> > especially the (id =~start) part. Now I got it.
> >
> > I guess the for statement can just be:
> >
> > for (; start != id; id++)
> 
> My brain based compiler complains about uninitialized usage of @id. I'm
> pretty sure it's rightfully complaining and a real compiler would agree,
> no?

*sigh* I should think more before pressing answer these days :)